The Patriot Post ~ 5 Featuring "CAL THOMAS"

Russia Quickly Crossed  bumble/socialist/scumbag/liar-Biden’s

Red Line

PxaWjHx3T-1gCnVyMmhnwan3ux0-ghZGMNI46Iu2DjnnGRKj0s5DyhMzQ5TmAik9wPtRxIaUC9R1nZKg-slWetPZCYJ6N11nrWjXBQZMZj0y5OyN-HshPfK_BhTsRA=s0-d-e1-ft#?profile=RESIZE_400x

Is bumble/socialist/scumbag/liar-Joe Biden all talk but no action? bumble/socialist/scumbag/liar-Biden certainly talked a big game when he warned Russian President Vladimir Putin last month in Geneva that “certain infrastructure should be off-limits to attack, period — by cyber or any other means.” Recall that a few weeks prior, Colonial Pipeline had experienced a ransomware attack  that forced a days-long shutdown of some 5,000 miles of pipeline in the Southeast, creating fuel shortages and gas price hikes. It was quickly determined that the culprit was a Russian-based organization with clear ties to the Kremlin.

In drawing his red line, bumble/socialist/scumbag/liar-Biden gave Putin a list of 16 do-not-touch areas, promising, “If, in fact, they violate these basic norms, we will respond with cyber. He knows.” bumble/socialist/ scumbag/liar-Biden further elaborated, “We agreed to task experts in both our countries to work on specific understandings about what’s off-limits [for hacking] and to follow up on specific cases that originate in … either of our countries.”

Heaven help the American entities that didn’t make  bumble/socialist/scumbag/liar-Biden’s list and are thus, apparently, fair game — assuming Putin wasn’t laughing at this threat all the way back home.

Indeed, bumble/socialist/scumbag/liar-Biden’s red line was crossed just last week. It appears clear that Russia’s foreign intelligence service, SVR, was behind a cyberattack on a Republican National Committee contractor. It’s the same group that in 2015 hacked the Democratic National Committee. So, for all intents and purposes, Putin has called bumble/socialist/scumbag/liar-Biden’s bluff. Will bumble/socialist/scumbag/liar-Biden follow through on his promised response?

“If the U.S. doesn’t respond, it will be open season on America’s digital infrastructure,” contends the Wall Street Journal editorial board. “Proportionate retaliation runs the risk of escalation. But after publicly drawing a red line, Mr. bumble/socialist/scumbag/liar-Biden has no choice lest he show Mr. Putin and other thugs around the world that the U.S. President’s words are empty.”

Thus far, the bumble/socialist/scumbag/liar-Biden administration has done nothing, which will only serve to further embolden Putin, whom bumble/socialist/ scumbag/liar-Biden earlier this year called a “killer,” as well as America’s other adversaries like China. Speaking of China, last week a clearly emboldened President Xi Jinping drew his own line in the sand during the Communist Party’s celebration of its centennial. Xi issued a clear warning to the U.S. not to stand in China’s way in its efforts to take over Taiwan. “Whoever attempts to do that,” Xi warned, “will surely break their heads on the steel Great Wall built with the blood and flesh of 1.4 billion of Chinese people.”

If bumble/socialist/scumbag/liar-Biden doesn’t hold Putin accountable, beyond another stern warning, the likelihood of him confronting Chinese aggression against Taiwan seems even more implausible. ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/81184?mailing_id=5977&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.5977&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

 

liar-Psaki Earns Three Pinocchios for Her ‘Defund’ Lie
H-ifm9gvpb1nZUfnL1600nOe2gfx3k65o0wl3mnI5qRIiQ4dKtKmnoa2YbSgUn2Do9hkl82J2UwWC-0WvYkEA35_cFQcBuQ3Iczd-JjX6oKqYdgTUptNfKMkDUcC6A=s0-d-e1-ft#?profile=RESIZE_400x

Nice try, Democrats. Every American citizen with an IQ above room temperature knew immediately that their “Republicans defunded the police” sleight-of-hand was an absurdity, a desperate falsehood in the face of mounting public opinion against their party’s anti-cop, pro-crime rhetoric. And yet they persisted. Even bumble/socialist/ scumbag/liar-Joe Biden’s White House press secretary, liar-Jen Psaki, tried to propagate the lie.

It was a bridge too far even for their Leftmedia lickspittles, and yesterday their ruse officially crashed and burned when the Washington Post’s “fact-checker” gave liar-Psaki’s ridiculous claim three Pinocchios. We think she was straight-up robbed of the fourth, but, hey, it’s The Washington Post.

How did all this happen? At a June 23 press briefing, liar-Psaki tried to argue that because Republicans had voted against bumble/socialist/scumbag/liar-Joe Biden’s whopping $1.9 trillion “American Rescue Plan,” they were guilty of defunding the cops. “That was voted into law by Democrats just a couple of months ago,” /liar-Psaki said. “Some might say that the other party was for defunding the police; I’ll let others say that, but that’s a piece.”

Some might say, eh? Clearly, she knew she was on thin ice.

It took a while, but as the Post’s Salvador Rizzo correctly noted Tuesday: “Although Republicans all opposed  bumble/socialist/scumbag/liar-Biden’s coronavirus relief package, no one voted to cut, or defund, anything. Rather, Democrats proposed $350 billion in emergency funds for state and local governments, and Republicans voted against those extra funds. That’s not a reduction.”

Of course, the Democrats’ troubles began long before  liar-Psaki’s nose started growing. They were calling for the defunding of the police during last year’s Black Lives Matter riots. Emblematic of their outbursts was this one from New York Congresswoman and “Squad” member  scumbag/worthless-Sandy, er, socialist/commie/liar-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “Defunding police means defunding police. It does not mean budget tricks or funny math.”

That’s pretty unequivocal, no?

And there was more — much, much more — as compiled by the folks at GOP.com. It’s said that a fish rots from the head, and bumble/socialist/scumbag/liar-Joe Biden proved the point when he euphemistically called for “reallocating police resources.” Elsewhere, Vice President scumbag/liar-Kamala Harris said she “applauds” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for defunding his city’s police, and another time said, “We have to reimagine public safety.”

Then there was South Carolina Congressman and House Majority Whip scumbag/liar-Jim Clyburn, who compared federal law enforcement to the Gestapo, and later ignored looting and arson in the nation’s capital while claiming that the only violence he saw there was from police.

Finally, there was Minnesota Congresswoman and “Squad” member scumbag/worthless-Ilhan Omar, who represents George Floyd’s still-smoldering Minneapolis district. “Not only do we need to disinvest in the police,” she declared, “but we need to completely dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department.”

But, sure, it’s the Republicans who’ve been beating the drum to defund the cops, and it’s the Republicans who’re responsible for the nationwide surge in violence, and it’s the Republicans who’re to blame for the plummeting of police morale and the mass exodus of cops from the streets.

As the Post’s Rizzo gently concluded, “Voting against a one-time infusion of cash is not the same as voting to cut funding, so there is little basis to claim that Republicans are trying to ‘defund the police.’”

Our Mark Alexander put the lie to this assertion earlier this month, but it bears repeating. And repeating. And repeating. Because not a single American voter should be left to believe it. The Democrats and their fellow leftists declared war on the cops. They own it, and they deserve to reap the whirlwind. ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/81185?mailing_id=5977&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.5977&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

 

Dems Losing Legal, Messaging Battles on Voting
xJx3TdWvFO7cvQZGNNOPg1242Q8jDXE9X_H-SNM2MsZGu9bLqZ18OPeaWy9fIvjIfD1ybQNryjPsElkaxD5iyn8aNVCYwJWSC1g9G11Mt6LVbUySVI2s_FRv287m1A=s0-d-e1-ft#?profile=RESIZE_400x

In politics, messaging matters. The debate over election laws highlights that as well as anything.

Democrats thought they had a winning message by framing it as a fight over “voting rights.” Their grossly misnamed “For the People Act” (HR 1) is an attempt to codify at the national level a lot of the pandemic accommodations in election practices. That includes their bulk-mail ballot strategy. They claim to be expanding and protecting “voting rights” so that everyone can vote.

Meanwhile, Democrats launched an assault on laws in Republican states meant to rein in some of the excesses, as well as to implement common sense measures like voter ID. Joe Biden and others label these laws “voter suppression” and “Jim Crow.” Democrats in Arizona sued the state over its law, and Biden’s Justice Department sued Georgia.

With their Leftmedia super PAC trumpeting the narrative and buzzwords, Democrats thought their message and strategy was foolproof.

But the courts thus far have been unpersuaded by Democrat arguments.

The Supreme Court last week validated Arizona’s law, and this week a federal judge refused to issue an injunction against Georgia.

“If the Arizona voting decision had come down a month ago,” said Harvard Professor of Law Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, “I don’t think the DOJ would’ve issued such a broad-based challenge to the Georgia law.”

It also turns out the Republican strategy of emphasizing election integrity really resonates with the electorate. Few Americans want the chance of fraud to undermine the legitimate votes of citizens.

Public support is especially high for requiring an ID to vote. Despite the mendacious framing by Democrats and the media, three-quarters of Americans support voter ID laws. We all know that IDs are required for all sorts of things, and perhaps it’s dawning on people just how racist it is for Democrats to insist that somehow blacks find it harder to acquire an ID.

Maybe that’s why James Clyburn, the No. 3 House Democrat and Black Caucus member, suddenly says, “We are always for voter ID.”

Someone should ask him about his comments last October: “Long voting lines. Closed polling locations. Voter ID laws. They’re all voter suppression.”

Election integrity is one of the great battles of our time, and it will be important to continue to not just hold the line but advance measures that will secure the legitimate votes of American citizens. ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/81176?mailing_id=5977&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.5977&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

 

Leftmedia Circles the CRT Wagons
PXxMwJ0U6MeMOsWbtZvzMcfRcwZDivT8h1sxoORuOAyJ1pB7mRfuypXhhM1xteYVG2DXOW7xGsEOauxa-UBt9kwWr9mED3wz4MngJ45_QbIoAIpUs6i39jy8pyNznA=s0-d-e1-ft#?profile=RESIZE_400x

The nation’s two leading Leftmedia papers of record, The Washington Post and The New York Times, have finally, after months of relative silence, decided that the recent beating Critical Race Theory has been receiving from concerned parents and conservative media like ours warranted a defense. In that vein, the Post and Times published articles that are intended to both deceive and downplay the imminent threat posed by CRT.

Offering little other than non sequiturs, the Post ran a piece from African American Policy forum director and UCLA Law and Columbia Law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw titled “The panic over critical race theory is an attempt to whitewash U.S. history.” The title makes clear what Crenshaw proceeds to do, which is disingenuously painting those opposed to the teaching of CRT as being opposed to the teaching of history. She writes:

The speed and virtual unanimity with which June 19 joined July 4 might seem to foretell a new reckoning with America’s brutally racist past, spurred on by 2020’s push to confront injustice. Yet instead of a new era of honesty and critical inquiry, the United States is being dragged into a moral panic about anti-racism itself, as agitated parents, right-wing activists and red-state lawmakers rail against their version of critical race theory. Their assault would allow only for a “history” that holds no contemporary consequences; racism ended in the past, according to the developing backlash, and we would all be better off if we didn’t try to connect it to the present.

As a true believer in CRT, Crenshaw demonstrates that she is fully sold out to its racist and twisted narrative of American history. As John McWhorter has so keenly observed, CRT is not so much an academic theory as it is a secular religion, whose dogma must be unquestionably accepted as “truth.”

The Times, on the other hand, didn’t attempt to defend CRT on its merits, or lack thereof. It takes a different tack, with an op-ed written by four authors across the political spectrum, including conservative free speech defender David French. The authors essentially argue not in support of CRT but against the recent efforts of state legislatures to ban the teaching of CRT in K-12 schools.

These laws threaten the basic purpose of a historical education in a liberal democracy. But censorship is the wrong approach even to the concepts that are the intended targets of these laws. … Let’s not mince words about these laws. They are speech codes. They seek to change public education by banning the expression of ideas. Even if this censorship is legal in the narrow context of public primary and secondary education, it is antithetical to educating students in the culture of American free expression.

On its face, it appears to be a compelling argument, especially for conservatives fundamentally concerned with preserving and supporting Americans’ First Amendment free speech rights. However, as Stanley Kurtz keenly counters, the issue directly regards the education of children by the states:

The authors act as though the authority of states over the content of K–12 education is a minor legal technicality. It is not. K–12 teachers do not have the academic freedom that college teachers do, and for a profoundly important reason. Primary and secondary students in public schools are a captive audience. Teachers cannot and must not be allowed to impose their personal politics on children and families legally compelled to use the public-school system (or shoulder significant financial burdens), especially when that involves outrageous and illiberal assaults on our most cherished principles. K–12 students are minors. They are vulnerable to a teacher’s authority in a way that college students are not. Telling minors that they should feel guilt or responsibility because of their skin color is a line that should not be crossed by any school district in these United States. Sadly, while some states will surely allow this to occur, it is well within the authority of other states to prevent this abuse if they see fit, for every good reason.

And this is precisely the problem. The proponents of CRT aren’t interested in education; they’re all about indoctrination. They’re not interested in teaching a balanced and accurate view of history; rather they want to bend the minds of America’s youth against our nation and the values upon which it was established. Their ultimate aim is fomenting revolution.

As the mask of CRT has begun steadily slipping, it has exposed a divisive, vindictive, anti-capitalist, illiberal, Marxist ideology offering only destruction and tyranny. It’s no wonder the Leftmedia has had difficulty attempting to defend such a nasty ideology. ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/81164?mailing_id=5977&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.5977&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

 

CAL THOMAS
TIdo7T1Bo1za6mJTeher-6GIzUA2Fb2W90LzCJR4_QWVXuqH-NfRp_JE1AnHpFWGoqfQqkdsNzj2BdWNkLNGdBe1MNXOEiS1Twig5pGk85uLgQ=s0-d-e1-ft#<a href=
Right, Wrong, and a Flower Shop

Is there anyone who can say what is always right and always wrong and present an unchanging standard by which all behavior can be judged?

I raise the question in light of last week’s non-ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined for a second time to hear an appeal from a flower shop owner in Washington State. Barronelle Stutzman, the owner, refused to provide flowers for a same-sex couple because her religious beliefs instruct her that marriage was created by God for opposite sexes.

The U.S. Supreme Court had sent her case back to the state supreme court for further consideration. That court upheld its original ruling, forcing Ms. Stutzman to provide the flowers, or face penalties under the state’s anti-discrimination laws. Three conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court wanted to hear the case. It takes four.

What confuses many people is that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused on the same religious grounds as Ms. Stutzman to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Why is religious belief a sufficient reason to uphold the Colorado baker’s right not to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding and a violation of another state’s law in the flower shop case? News reports say Ms. Stutzman has provided flowers in the past to gay individuals, but not for their weddings.

How far are the courts willing to go with this? Should an Orthodox Jewish or Muslim caterer be forced to violate their religious beliefs when those faiths view marriage as an opposite-sex ritual? What if the same-sex couple also wants pork served at the reception? Jews and Muslims regard pork as unclean food. Would a court order demand they serve the item?

Why do these court challenges appear to have a higher political purpose? There must be flower shops in Washington State and bakeries in Colorado that cater to same-sex weddings. Why pick on the ones that don’t? Is this part of a larger goal to destroy what remains of what used to be known as traditional values?

Basic pillars that have supported America have included religious faith and the military and have been reflected in the stories and characters created by the iconic Walt Disney. These and many others are now under attack.

The Walt Disney Company has announced a change in its welcoming messages at all properties from “Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls,” to “Good evening dreamers of all ages.” A company spokesperson (notice my avoidance of gender specificity) said the decision is in alignment with Disney’s “inclusion and diversity” policy.

Why is it that inclusion and diversity always seem to exclude people who believe differently? Such people are now viewed as criminals in some states if they seek to apply their faith to their businesses and in the public square.

Challenges to traditional values will continue as an older generation that lived by, or at least believed in them, passes away. Younger people who have been baptized by the “woke” culture in their public schools and universities seem to be willing to tolerate just about anything. What will be their new “standard”? Can it even be called a standard if it changes with the times?

The problem for individuals and nations when standards of right and wrong are abandoned is where it leads. Moral anarchy has been one of the contributing factors to the collapse of empires and great nations of the past. Apparently, we think we can escape the judgment of history and the judgment of God by “believing whatever our itching ears want to hear” and doing “whatever seems right in our own eyes.”

Those two quotes are from Scripture. Look them up before a court decides they are not inclusive. ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/81157?mailing_id=5977&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.5977&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!

Join Command Center

Email me when people reply –